Quoting Didier 'OdyX' Raboud (2014-08-27 03:58:48) > Le lundi, 4 août 2014, 15.19:46 Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : >> 9.06 >> ---- >> >> Requires a SONAME bump and therefore a coordinated library >> transition. > > After discussing this with Julien Cristau, I've done the following: > > a) get the list of symbols dropped between stable and 9.06 > b) verify which of these are present in .h files in the stable source > package > c) objdump -x | grep for these symbols in all binaries from all > reverse dependencies of libgs9 (aka gimp, libspectre1 and > texlive-binaries) for both unstable and stable (for partial upgrades). > > Given that none of said symbols is found in any of these binaries, the > SONAME bump is not technically required. > > I will therefore 9.06 as it is very soon now. > > The "good solution" to this problem would be to (get upstream to) > limit the number of exposed symbols and ensure a stable ABI across > releases. That "could" be done with a Debian patch but it needs a good > understanding of which interfaces the library is really meant to > expose, and I'm nowhere near this point now. > >> Plan forward >> ------------ >> >> 1a) Release 9.06 to unstable >> 1b) Prepare 9.14 >> 2) Release 9.10 to unstable when 9.06 is in testing > > I think we should rather focus on making 9.09 available in jessie as > that's the latest GPL version as I understand this. ~/ghostscript$ git grep -B1 AGPL upstream/9.07_dfsg doc/News.htm upstream/9.07_dfsg:doc/News.htm-<p> As of this release (9.07), Ghostscript and GhostPDL are distributed under upstream/9.07_dfsg:doc/News.htm:the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL). > Frankly, it'd be really nice to get upstream revert this license > change which will cause headaches (or straight interdictions in some > corporations) for many people, including us as maintainers. I raised concerns with upstream on irc. My impression was that they've spent a big effort ending at AGPL and are tired of discussing it - in particular they are reluctant to discuss it in public. I then raised the issue at debian-devel where surprisingly few reacted, and later when a substantial concern was raised on irc I recommended to share that as a follow-up to the mailinglist thread so as to be able to point upstream to it. That did not happen. I recommend that we have refined arguments reday before (again) approaching upstream - e.g. as a wiki page referencing various substantial views. I'd be happy to continue the dialogue with upstream but others are welcome too - just please be gentle: Debian has a track record upstream for not understanding licensing issues e.g. font folks pressuring to relicense which was not owned, only distributed, by them. > Any upload for Ghostscript >= 9.10 should not be done before ensuring > that all reverse dependencies can live with an AGPL Ghostscript. Correction: >= 9.07 (see above). Could you please elaborate which insurance you are talking about here? >> @Odyx: As agreed, please go ahead with testing 9.06 and when believed >> working start coordinate the library transition with the release >> team. > > I will just upload, it doesn't a transition given the checks I've done > and mentionned above. You are quite welcome to join maintenance of Ghostscript, but I got the impression that you have your hands full with CUPS and printer drivers. What I suggested was that you helped with "paperwork" around the package, but leave it to me to do the actual release of it. Let me repeat: You are *quite* welcome to participate in maintenance of Ghostscript packaging. Just beware that that's what you are now doing. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature